The secret life of J. Allen Hynek?

the professor's apparent transformation from skeptic to UFO proponent was not quite the conversion event that it appeared on the surface. Since his
teens Hynek had been an enthusiastic though closeted student of the occult.

Although incomplete (guess you'll have to buy the actual Skeptical Enquirer issue. Jan.) this is an interesting article for me being a fan of Jacques
Vallee. Having an interest in Vallee almost assures that you can't go without having an interest in Dr. Hynek. The article suggests something i have
never really heard about Hynek. Apparently the good doctor didn't really go into the UFO research field as a complete skeptic.

It's an interesting look into a side the diehard Hynek fans will most likely get ruffled over. Despite that i recommend finding the real issue. It
goes on to his life after his ties with the government fizzled and how he dealt with it.

Being interested in the occult in that time period meant a curious nature and probably quite a bit of data which never made any mainstream news. So to
have an interest, Hynek was, in part, checking out the information to see what was credible and what wasn't. It gives him more credibility imnho, not
less.

Hynek's credibility is mostly due to the fact that he was a hard scientist and then "converted" to the belief in UFOs. The fact that he was
already interested in "esoteric" matters does nothing to strengthen his credibility.

I have a mixed feeling about it. on one hand you can think he put aside his preconceived private beliefs as he was a man of science. the other is that
he could have went in it to prove them. now, i get that he was considered a huge debunker for years but you have to consider the environment he was
in. being the military backed position. we all can assume that you don't go into those projects without guidelines. now, where his interest comes in
with esoteric writings, he may have felt it was a trade off. Be the public debunker in trade for inside "hidden" knowledge. that is until his
"handlers" dropped him. then what else did he have to lose?

Dr. Jacques Vallee: As a young student, I must have been 18 or 19 when I first became interested. I was really looking for information about
traditions and I became aware of the fact that science didn't just come out of the imagination of a few people, that there was a tradition of research
that went very far back, and that at some period in history had been actually underground. I was looking for information about that. That's what led
me to the Rosicrucian tradition.

Dr. Bob: I was surprised also to learn later on that Dr. Hynek was also a member for a number of years.

Dr. Jacques Vallee: Yes, I think I relate in my diary the time when we came to discussing this and I was delighted to learn that he had, for many
years, gotten information from the tradition as well. We both came to the same conclusion, by the way, that we really didn't need an organization to
continue this research, as there were many sources around and that kind of research was best done independently. But those organizations were very
sincere and gave us a start.

Hynek's credibility is mostly due to the fact that he was a hard scientist and then "converted" to the belief in UFOs. The fact that he was
already interested in "esoteric" matters does nothing to strengthen his credibility.

How does having an interest in the occult, or anything which should equate to knowledge damage a persons credibility ? If anything it lends reason to
him being selected to the task.

Because the reason he had all that credibility was that he was perceived as a hard scientist with no leanings in that direction in the first place.
For someone like that to change their stance leads to the belief that he must have really seen something. For someone who already believes, what
would you expect?

By the way, it doesn't hurt his credibility to me personally. At least I mean I still have respect for him and his research.

Originally posted by randyvs
How does having an interest in the occult, or anything which should equate to knowledge damage a persons credibility If anything it lends reason to
him being selected to the task.?

in what way? in that you believe he was approved by a secret occult group?

Because the reason he had all that credibility was that he was perceived as a hard scientist with no leanings in that direction in the first place.
For someone like that to change their stance leads to the belief that he must have really seen something. For someone who already believes,
what would you expect?

Hynek once told Vallee that he had become an astronomer in order to discover "the very limitations of science, the places where it broke down,
the phenomena it didn't explain" (Vallee 1996, 232).

Amen to that. The same here, and let me emphasize 'the phenomena it didn't explain' or let me go further 'the phenomena it didn't want to explain
for being out of the scientific understandings or the truth too scary'.

Interesting thread and I enjoyed reading more about him.
I am very interested in the Lonnie Zamora case and of course how it relates to the Gary Wilcox case and J. Allen Hynek mentioned that he that the
Lonnie Zamora case was very special so much in fact he stated :
At the wikipedia:

"Hynek further wrote[18] "I think this case may be the 'Rosetta Stone' ... There's never been a strong case with so unimpeachable a witness." Also
noting his growing frustration with Blue Book, Hynek wrote, "The AF doesn't know what science is."

But I further think that that landing were Zamora was a partaker of was actually an error by the aliens (I think martians) of a brief miss in
calculation of the actual landing site they were intended to land: Holloman AFB:
Reference: Richard Doty, Linda Moulton Howe 1964 April 26 or 25th. Twilight Zone etc.

The 'secret life of J. Allen Hynek' according to published quotes by the man himself? Not very secretive and some 30 years too late to be
presented as an expose.

The French-born Jacques Vallee, a computer scientist and UFO author, was one of the few persons who knew Hynek's secret. Hynek once told Vallee
that he had become an astronomer in order to discover "the very limitations of science, the places where it broke down, the phenomena it didn't
explain" (Vallee 1996, 232).

Although it's presented as a negative, the sentiment reflects the ideals of science; aren't 'unexplained phenomena' at the very heart of science?
Should we be forever reinventing the wheel?

Some authors for Skeptical Enquirer appear to conflate 'unexplained phenomena' with fairy hunts and the notorious 'woo-woo.' The article seems to
be along those lines and seeks to undermine his efforts with the simple aspersion that he was once interested in the 'esoteric.' If that was a
credible argument, we'd be lining up Isaac Newton for believing that the planets were all set in place by God when his calculations couldn't account
for the gravitational pull of more than two bodies.

I haven't looked, but are there any Skeptical Enquirer articles throwing out Newtonian Physics because Newton was 'esoteric?'

I wasn't picking up on the expose vibe. more so, it seemed to bring another aspect of Hynek to those who haven't read everything about him besides
him being the "swamp gas" guy. although, i do know the purpose of the Skeptical Inquirer I didn't feel the heavy bias that usually pervades the
magazine.

I'm also, not seeing your Newton analogy. Newton was proven right about many things and his esoteric beliefs had nothing to do with what was.
Mathematics are much more provable than aliens. Galileo almost died for his "heresy" by people who believed an invisible man.

I did find it amusing you used the term "fairy hunts" to describe the authors. you know, considering Hyneks relation to Vallee( Passport to
Magonia).

It's a great subject that raises interesting questions. Maybe the greatest question it raises is why some of our most cherished "scientific"
ufologists seemed to move away from the ETH while embracing--through their own personal "fact-finding"--a more esoteric and all-encompassing
explanation for who and/or what our alleged "visitors" actually are.

Dr. Hynek's working and longterm personal friendship with Dorothy Izatt imo clarifies much of where his curiosity and research led him. The best
information available at the moment, as well as the major source for the Skeptical Enquirer article--both very, very interesting reads--is Jacques
Vallee's Forbidden Science I & II. Check 'em out, you'll be glad you did.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.